FUELING AMERICA: ENABLING
AND EMPOWERING SMALL BUSINESSES
TO UNLEASH DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
Lafayette, LA.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in the Picard Center—Rockhold Learning Center, University of Louisiana,
Lafayette, LA, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, Chair of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senator Landrieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, CHAIR,
AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

Chair LANDRIEU. Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to call this
field hearing of the Small Business Committee of the United States
Senate to order. Let me welcome all of you for this very important—and I think it’s going to be very productive—discussion. I
thank our witnesses for being available today.
I want to begin by thanking the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and particularly the Picard Center for allowing us to host
our field hearing here. It’s the first time for me in this center. Of
course, I’ve heard a great deal about it. I knew Cecil Picard personally, and I’m just so overwhelmed to be in his presence and the
family and what they have meant to Louisiana, not in the field of
energy but in education as one of our great leaders of early childhood education.
So this center is just really a wonderful blessing to this university and to our state. I thank them for allowing us to hold our hearing.
I also want to thank a few special guests from the university.
Mark Zappi, the Dean of Engineering, is here. Randy McCollum,
the Chair of the Chamber Energy Committee; Jerry Luke LeBlanc,
former elected official; and Bruce Conque from the Lafayette
Chamber are here. Thank you all for being here and others that
have joined us.
I want to begin by saying how pleased I am that we could have
this hearing in Lafayette, Louisiana, today’s hearing. It’s timely
and important on the subject of job creation, of independent energy
gas producers, and their job creation prowess.
(1)

2
It’s only appropriate that we have this hearing in Lafayette. This
region of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast is home to 1,300 companies
operating in the oil and gas sector and host to the second largest
oil and gas exposition in the nation, the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil
Exposition. I’d particularly like to thank, of course, Jason El Koubi
of the Lafayette Chamber, who couldn’t be with us today, and, of
course, the president of the university, Dr. Savoie, and others that
I had mentioned earlier today.
In virtually every recent public poll that asked respondents to
name the most important issues Congress is facing today, jobs, the
economy, and expanding opportunities for the middle class come
out as the number one issues. Partisan bickering is slowing things
down, but the congressional dysfunction should not stand in the
way of efforts to create the kinds of high-skilled, high-wage jobs
that will move our economy forward and provide the high-paying
jobs that the middle class needs and relies on and our country relies on for energy self-reliance.
According to the Independent Petroleum Association of America,
as oil and natural gas jobs continue to grow, incomes associated
with this industry are also rising in contrast to the national average of stagnant wages of the past decade. According to a recent
paper by the Economic Policy Institute, the vast majority of U.S.
workers, including white collar and blue collar and those with or
without a college degree, have endured a decade of wage stagnation. However, the average hourly pay for upstream oil and gas is
about $34.50 an hour or nearly 50 percent higher than the national
average.
Here in Louisiana, the annual wage is about $57,000, but the average wage of direct jobs in the unconventional oil and gas industry
is almost double that at $108,000. The facts are that jobs in this
particular industry pay more than four times the minimum wage,
which has been pegged at $7.25 for a couple of years now. Of
course, it’s being debated to increase, but has not yet.
These jobs pay the kind of wages and salaries, in my view—and
I know it’s shared by many here—that allow families to invest in
homes, in their education, and in their futures. If Congress can
take the steps to increase domestic energy production, we not only
increase America’s energy independence, but we also create the
kinds of jobs that will grow the middle class and have a major impact on reducing income inequalify in our country, which is a goal
I believe that we all share.
The focus of today’s field hearing is to examine the important
role of independent oil and gas producers in supporting the small
business supply chain and impacting our energy security and some
of the challenges that these companies face in their ongoing operations. The facts won’t surprise anyone in this room.
But many of my colleagues on Capitol Hill would be surprised to
learn that the companies that primarily power our domestic production are not the mammoth, international, integrated companies
that we’re all proud of and well aware of, but rather the 14,000
independent producers that, on average—this is going to be shocking to some—employ 12 people full time and three part-time. In addition, this industry creates work and jobs for more than 46,000
small businesses that are along the production supply chain.

3
According to testimony from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, independent producers develop 95 percent of
America’s oil and gas wells, produce 54 percent of America’s oil,
and 85 percent of gas. Independent producers are exploration and
production companies that participate in only upstream activities.
This means they explore for and produce oil and gas, but they do
not necessarily transport, refine, or market the product.
They are an integral part, however, of this industry. According
to the independent producers, the average independent producer
has been in business for 26 years, and, as I said, employs only 12
full time employees and three part-time—quite a contrast, I believe, to the commonly held view.
The small, tight-knit, and in many instances family owned or
family like businesses have a mighty impact on America’s energy
economy across our country. Independent producers support over 4
million direct jobs and indirect jobs onshore and over 200,000 offshore, according to IHS Global Insight. These jobs drive over $100
billion in total payroll, contributing billions to local tax revenues
and economic activity, which, in turn, supports an average of 5.2
jobs for everyone directly employed.
Onshore independent producers contribute $579 billion to the
U.S. economy and, offshore, $100 billion, again, according to the
same study. In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, independent producers drilled 37,175 wells. These wells represent the vast new reservoirs, if you will, or findings of gas and
oil and have driven the expansion of shale gas production.
Combined independent production also drives nearly $6 billion of
the $11 billion collected each year in rents, royalties, and bonuses
by the federal government. I’d like to underscore that just once
again. Combined independent production also drives nearly $6 billion of the $11 billion that goes to the federal treasury each year
in rents and royalties and bonuses. Almost $6 billion of that comes
off the shores of Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf.
Although not all independent producers quality as small businesses, the ones that do impact our economy in a mighty way. One
of our witnesses today representing a larger independent says in
her testimony that her company contracts with over 3,500 small
businesses from all over the country and paid a total of $2.7 billion
to those businesses over a two-year period.
To give you some perspective of what this means, the entire
budget of the Small Business Administration, which I authorize as
the chair of the Small Business Committee, is, for the whole nation, $1 billion a year. So this one company, a large, independent
oil and gas, contracts with over 3,500 small businesses. That’s how
long and powerful this small business supply chain is.
Independent contractors drill the majority of wells associated
with new production. As you will hear from the producers today,
one of the most significant economic drivers supporting investment
by the industry is access to cash flow. Cash flow from operations
drives the next investment and helps mitigate some of the industry’s real financial risks, especially in the exploration and production stage.
One of the primary cash flow strategies independent producers
employ is entering into partnerships with their major industry

4
counterparts to finance exploration and offset risks with new ventures. For example, in practice, offshore operations often begin with
small operators exploring new fields, which are then developed
through partnerships with larger operators. Offshore independent
producers are the largest shareholders in 66 percent of the 7,521
leases in the entire Gulf of Mexico and 81 percent of the producing
leases. They are also partners to major companies on the remaining leases and provide necessary support for offshore development.
In addition to partnering with well-funded investors, independent producers rely on longstanding provisions of the U.S. tax
code to facilitate these important cash flow requirements. As every
witness here today will tell you, the current tax code includes a
number of provisions that independent producers count on to recover substantial investment costs quickly for tax purposes,
amounts that are immediately reinvested into additional domestic
production, which drives contracts with small business, drives our
economy, and drives job creation.
Not withstanding these obvious and proven benefits, some of
these tax provisions have come under fire in recent years as being
unnecessary or excessive industry subsidies. As part of this hearing, I would like to enter into the record a 2011 Bloomberg government report entitled ‘‘Eliminating Oil and Gas Company Tax
Breaks: Independent Producers Face a Funding Gap’’ that concluded that repeal of these tax provisions would reduce the drilling
activity of independent producers.
[The information referred to follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35
Chair LANDRIEU. If these beneficial tax provisions had not been
included in the current code, independent producers would have
spent $2.1 billion less to drill new wells. About 1,558 fewer wells
would have been drilled in the United States at a time when we’re
trying to increase domestic production for obvious reasons. Revenue
loss and job loss would have resulted.
So I would like this hearing to be an opportunity to set the
record straight, to hear from independent producers here today
how proposals to eliminate these longstanding provisions in the tax
code would impact their operations and ability to fund new projects
and the ability to expand their operations. We have an impressive
list of panelists today. They each bring with them their own individual experiences.
I’d like to first start with Stephen Comstock. I’m going to introduce all of them for a five-minute opening, and then we’ll go to
some questions to the panel.
First, we have Stephen Comstock, who is the Director of Tax and
Accounting for the API, formerly the Chair of the Energy and Environmental Tax Committee for the American Bar Association.
Stephen, thank you for being here and for your testimony.
Next we’ll hear from Lee Jackson, who is a majority shareholder
of Jackson Offshore and an offshore services operator with more
than 20 years in the maritime industry. Mr. Jackson is a former
river boat pilot, and has been appointed to the Louisiana River
Pilot Oversight and Review Board.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for your attendance.
Joe LeBlanc is Co-Founder and Senior Managing Partner of
PerPetro Energy, LLC, which is a privately held independent oil
and gas company headquartered right here in Lafayette. Formed in
2011, it has a plan to maximize the value of Gulf Coast Basin legacy properties. Joe has more than 30 years of experience in the industry.
Joe, thank you very much for being here.
Jennifer Stewart is Vice President of Tax of Southwestern Energy. She is also here in her capacity as the Chair of the Tax Committee of the American Exploration and Production Council.
And, finally, Stephen Landry, who is a Tax Partner with Ernst
and Young. From 2007 to 2013, Steve served as VP of Tax for Marathon Oil.
And, Gigi, I didn’t want to pass you up.
Gigi Lazenby is Managing Director and CEO of Bretagne, an
independent oil and gas company with properties in the Big Sinking Field of Kentucky that she founded in 1988. She is formerly the
Chair of the Independent Oil and Gas Producers. I had the pleasure of hosting Gigi in my home, I think, in Washington.
So it’s wonderful to see all of you here.
Stephen, why don’t we start with you. I think the staff has directed a five-minute introduction, and then we’ll go into a series of
questions.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN COMSTOCK, DIRECTOR OF TAX AND
ACCOUNTING POLICY, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

36
Accounting Policy at the American Petroleum Institute. API is the
national trade association representing over 550 member companies of every size and representing every segment of the U.S. oil
and natural gas industry.
America’s oil and natural gas industry has been a bright spot in
our economy, as you said, with benefits felt across the country. Innovation, many times spurred by small businesses and entrepreneurs, has helped generate a domestic energy revolution
through the development of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling techniques. This revolution, in turn, has sparked new life
into domestic manufacturing, is supporting 2.1 million jobs, and
has raised the average household’s disposable income by $1,200 a
year.
Large and small companies work together to meet America’s energy demand. According to the recent census data, there are over
46,000 small businesses supporting the production of oil and natural gas in the United States and directly employ over 300,000
workers. Every day, they provide a vital aspect to the generation
of America’s energy.
One area where this is clearly seen is something familiar, as you
noted, offshore development. Due to the cost involved in offshore
energy exploration production, larger companies are more likely to
develop these areas. But to make those investments work, larger
companies must rely upon a vast nationwide supply chain that includes and supports countless small businesses.
As an example, opening up the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf
to oil and natural gas development could create 280,000 new jobs
along the East Coast and across the country and contribute up to
$23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy, according to a just-released study by Quest Offshore Resources. Many of those jobs
would be directly in the oil and natural gas industry, but the impact would extend to a wide range of businesses in our robust supply chain to provide food, transportation, retail, healthcare, and
other services to our employees and their families.
Of course, small businesses are also involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. This has always been and will continue
to be a risky, time consuming, and expensive process. Industry operators must spend significant time and money before generating
a return on their investments. Therefore, the ability to generate
and preserve cash flow is vitally important to the industry.
The current tax code allows exploration and production companies to recover costs quickly so that investment profile is maintained. Specifically, ordinary costs involved in drilling a well which
have no salvage value, such as wages, fuel, and maintenance, can
be deducted when incurred. The resulting improvement in cash
flow means operators have more money to invest and can perform
more exploration and drilling, produce more energy, and create
more jobs. All of that helps grow our economy.
Changes to cost recovery would force small producers to shut
down older domestic oil and natural gas wells and cut back on
drilling new ones. These economic changes would impact larger
companies as well. Accordingly, the result would be reduced domestic oil and natural gas production and fewer U.S. jobs. The economic ripple would adversely impact the job growth and revenues

37
of many small businesses in our domestic supply chain and those
that depend on a secure energy supply.
In short, changes to the tax code in cost recovery could unintentionally hit the brakes on America’s energy and manufacturing renaissance and have a devastating effect on jobs, the economy, and
revenue to the government. The domestic oil and natural gas industry, both large and small, supports 9.8 million jobs in the
United States. Manufacturing jobs are coming back to the U.S. in
droves thanks to the abundance of affordable U.S. energy.
Just by allowing our industry to do what we do best, the federal
government collects revenues averaging $85 million a day in taxes,
rents, royalties, and bonuses. In short, energy is working in America.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Comstock follows:]

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. And one clarification: I’m still a very active and proud river boat pilot.
Thank you for this opportunity today to discuss how we can work
together to improve the commercial environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs in Louisiana through the growth of domestic energy production. Obviously, I’m no expert when it comes
to tax law, but, surely, I can testify to the trickle down effect of
such incentives and the effect on companies such as mine.
Jackson Offshore Operators supplies fast crew supply boats and
platform supply vessels to the offshore oil and gas industry in the
Gulf of Mexico. We currently have two 175-foot fast crew supply
vessels in operation under long-term contracts with super majors.
In addition, we have two 210-foot fast supply crew boats under construction at a shipyard in Harvey, Louisiana, and four 252-foot
platform supply vessels under construction at a shipyard in Florida.
The fast crew supply vessels are utilized to carry industrial
workers and general oil field cargoes between shore based locations
and the drilling rigs and production installations offshore. The four
platform supply vessels are much larger vessels that are specifically built to support deep water drilling, development, and production. These four vessels are also on long-term contracts with super
majors as well.
Jackson Offshore Operators was formed in 2011 when I purchased two fast crew boats which had previously been built in Louisiana two years earlier. By this time next year, Jackson Offshore’s
employment will grow to approximately 136 personnel once our expanding effort reaches its peak, and that represents eight ships in
operation with an annual payroll and benefit costs of about $30
million.
While Jackson Offshore Operators is a young company, we have
been blessed to have loyal support from our customers, the domestic and international oil and gas companies. Without these large
companies being active in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico, my
company and its growth would simply not be possible.
Jackson Offshore is involved a capital-intensive industry. We
have to build state-of-the-art vessels to support deep water drilling,
and these ships are very costly. Currently, the six ships under construction will cost in excess of $180 million. Without the long-term
contracts issued to Jackson Offshore by the majors, I would not be
able to secure the equity capital which is over $35 million and obtain the necessary debt financing to build these ships contracted by
the offshore oil and gas companies.
The major oil and gas companies find investments in the United
States to be attractive for several reasons. The U.S. is a stable
country. It is a country with fair and well-established laws and tax
regulations that make drilling, development, and production for oil
and gas in the U.S. economically attractive.

42
In addition, the U.S. has been blessed that oil and gas has been
found here in abundance. However, there are many other countries
around the world where oil and gas has been found and that also
offer attractive alternatives for the investments of capital dollars to
the oil and gas industry. As a result, it is of critical importance
that the environmental laws and the tax regime in the U.S. remain
competitive with those found in other countries around the globe.
I’m not suggesting that we should reduce our commitment to
having high environmental protection for our country, but that the
environmental laws and the regulations sometimes represent a less
transparent and a less fair and balanced way. Using environmental
laws and regulations and with new and more punitive interpretations to punish the oil and gas companies will unnecessarily raise
the cost of safe and clean drilling, and development and production
of oil and gas will certainly result in the capital of these companies
moving to other countries.
While our tax laws are and have been used to incentivize and direct investments of capital throughout the history of our country,
I would argue that they are not giveaways. And changing existing
tax laws and regulations for the oil and gas industry at this time
would have a very detrimental effect on the future growth of Jackson Offshore and the oil and gas industry in general.
The administration proclaims it wants an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy in the U.S., and it has taken many actions
to encourage production of renewable energy. I believe that the
focus on renewable energy is good for our country. But an all-ofthe-above approach to energy policy in the U.S. should not include
any changes in the current tax laws and regulations that discourage oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
Changing the existing tax laws and regulations to increase taxes
and fees and create high costs to the detriment of the oil and gas
industry in the U.S. will only cause the oil and gas companies to
move their future capital spending to other countries that provide
a better economic return to the investors. We should all remember
that investment capital always flows to the venue where it is best
treated.
Raising the cost of drilling, developing, and producing oil and gas
in the U.S. will only result in reduced capital dollars being invested
here at home. Without the commitments from the oil and gas companies to the deep water of the U.S., Jackson Offshore would not
exist today. Without those continued investments by the oil and
gas industry in the U.S., our future growth will be ended.
We must all realize that the U.S. is in a competition with other
countries for investment dollars. We need to encourage and not discourage additional investments in the U.S. by both domestic and
international oil and gas companies.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with my views on
this topic that is critical to my company, Louisiana, and, frankly,
the U.S.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]

Mr. LANDRY. Senator Landrieu, thank you for inviting me to testify in today’s hearing. My name is Stephen Landry. I am a partner
in the National Tax Practice at EY. I serve in the oil and gas industry group, and the opinions I express are my own and not those
of the firm.
Growth in domestic production of oil and gas in the last five
years has been well documented. The production growth is a direct
result of increased capital spending. A recent American Petroleum
Institute publication indicates that capital spending for U.S.
projects in 2013 was approximately $350 billion.
This capital spending was by businesses of all sizes. And according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the overwhelming majority of wells drilled in the U.S. were drilled by independent producers, most of which qualify as small businesses.
Current law allows a deduction for independent producers of 100
percent of intangible drilling costs. These costs, though labeled
with the term, intangible, are clearly not. These costs are for
wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies, and similar expenses without salvage value that are incident to and necessary for the drilling
of oil and gas wells.
Having these deductions allows for rates of return that have created the capital spending we discussed. Changes on these rates of
return for oil and gas wells will be directly influenced by changes
in the tax law. It has been estimated that a change to amortization
of IDCs over five years could change the rate of return by as much
as 8 percent for independent oil and gas producers and their wells.
This reduction in the cost recovery value of IDCs, using conservative discount rates, will raise the cost of capital for investments
in oil and gas. A change in the expected return of this magnitude
is significant enough to change investment decisions and could
make investments in some oil and gas wells uneconomical.
Large integrated producers that are choosing among alternative
investments might simply allocate their capital to other projects
and jurisdictions that offer better rates of return. Small companies,
for whom cost of capital is a larger barrier to entry, might not
enter at all or be forced to grow at a slower rate.
Because more than 60 percent of IDCs are wages, such a reduction in the rate of return on investments in oil and gas wells could
have an immediate impact on workers in oil producing states. IDCs
relate to jobs because the ability to deduct these expenses in the
year in which they occur provides the capital used by independent
producers to drill the next well. The negative economic impact of
their repeal could be substantial. States may see a decline in the
creation of new jobs and could experience a lower wage base for existing jobs.
Over the next 10 years, the industry could also experience significant job loss relative to what would occur under present law.
The effect will be felt eventually by the entire economy, given the

48
importance of low cost energy throughout the country, especially at
this point in the country’s economic recovery.
There are other provisions in the tax code that also affect the
cost of developing oil and gas. The industry already has a reduced
percentage in the deduction for domestic manufacturing activity
costs. Depletion and amortization of geological and geophysical
costs, like IDCs, are also capital cost recovery allowances. Depletion is simply a form of depreciation for oil and gas and mineral
resources that allows for a deduction from taxable income to reflect
the declining production of reserves over time.
Tax policy reforms that increase the cost of capital for America’s
oil and gas could have several negative effects for the overall economy. Fewer wells drilled and decreased energy investment will
cause domestic oil and gas production, one of the bright spots in
our economy over the last several years, to fall significantly below
current projections, making the goal of attaining U.S. energy independence over the next decade much more difficult to reach.
Taxes paid by the industry to the federal government could fall
significantly. In addition, the effects would include lower earnings
and fewer jobs for America’s small businesses and oil field laborers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Landry follows:]

Ms. LAZENBY. Chairman Landrieu, thank you so much for inviting me to testify and to participate in this very important hearing
on independent producers and oil and natural gas provisions. My
name is Gigi Lazenby. I am the Managing Member and Chief Executive Officer and 100 percent shareholder of Bretagne, LLC, an oil
and gas production company that I founded in 1988.
Bretagne’s properties are in the Big Sinking Field of Kentucky
which produced over 100 million barrels since it was found in about
1917. Unfortunately, I didn’t produce all those barrels, but there
are still a lot left. My company’s operations include primary and
enhanced recovery operations as well as development and field extension drilling.
I am also the immediate past chair of the Independent Petroleum
Association of America. IPAA represents, as you quoted earlier,
thousands of independent oil and natural gas explorers and producers as well as the service and supply industries that support
their efforts. These would be significantly affected by changes to
the tax code.
Independent producers develop 95 percent of American oil and
natural gas wells, produce 54 percent of American oil, and produce
85 percent of American natural gas. The average independent has
been in business for 26 years and employs 12 full time employees
and three part-time employees. Additionally, IPAA is the primary
national trade association representing smaller independent natural gas and oil producers, many of which are marginal operators,
like myself.
Since independent producers’ revenues are derived from the selling of produced natural gas and oil, federal government actions
that reduce this revenue thereby reduce the investment capital
independents can make in production activities which would result
in significant reduction in American energy production and the economic machine it fuels. Tax reform proposals being contemplated
in Congress pose serious risks to independent producers’ ability to
develop oil and natural gas in Louisiana and across the United
States.
Much of the discussion surrounding tax reform in Congress has
involved eliminating business deductions in order to lower marginal rates. While there has been talk of comprehensive tax reform,
reforming both the individual and corporate sections of the tax
code, nearly all of the congressional focus has been on corporate
taxation and the need to lower corporate marginal rates. Tax reform along these lines poses big risks for independent producers.
First, independent oil and natural gas producers are not tax rate
driven. Instead, independent producers are concerned with the
need to generate capital and recover costs to reinvest in American
operations.
Second, a substantial majority of IPAA’s producer members are
not organized as C–Corporations. As such, these businesses would
see no benefit to only lowering corporate tax rates.

54
Three key issues that affect independent producers are the expensing of intangible drilling costs, IDCs; the percentage depletion
deduction; and the passive loss exception for working interests in
oil and gas operations. IDCs generally include any costs incurred
that have no salvage value and are necessary for the drilling of
wells or the preparation of wells for the production of natural gas
or oil.
Information provided to IPAA by its members indicates that
drilling budgets would be cut by 25 percent to 40 percent if the
ability to expense IDCs was eliminated by Congress. This could result in nearly one-quarter fewer wells being drilled per year.
The percentage depletion deduction is truly a small producer
issue. While percentage depletion is available to all extractive industries—that’s all mining, coal, gravel, gold mining—it is highly
limited for oil and natural gas and is only available to independent
producers and only on the first 1,000 barrels per day of production.
Percentage depletion is critical for smaller independent producers’
ability to maintain existing production and to finance drilling operations from cash flow.
Finally, the passive loss exception for working interests in oil
and gas properties is also an important smaller independent producer issue. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided an exception for
working interests in natural gas and oil from being part of the passive income basket, and if a loss resulted from expenditures for
drilling wells, it was deemed to be an active loss that could be used
to offset active income as long as the investor’s liabilities were not
limited. That’s an important point—not limited.
Most American wells today are drilled by small and independent
companies, many of which depend on individual investors. So far,
only the administration has formally proposed eliminating all oil
and natural gas provisions for all producers.
Recently, Senate Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus
from Montana, released a discussion draft regarding cost recovery
provisions in the tax code. The Baucus draft proposes substantial
changes to IDC and percentage depletion to the detriment of American oil and natural gas production.
Further, the Baucus draft only proposes changing cost recovery
tax provisions. There is no discussion of rate reduction or impacts
to individual filers. To date, there has not been a proposed tax reform formulation that would not result in a tax increase for independent producers.
In summary, independent producers invest their American cash
flow back into new American production projects. Reinvestment is
essential to maintain and grow U.S. production. Without it, U.S.
production would decline rapidly because wells deplete as they are
produced.
If the United States wants to continue to increase national energy security and further the economy, more drilling will be required, not less. I would urge Congress to support those actions
that enhance the future and reject the ill advised calls for adverse
restrictions to capital.
I look forward to further questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lazenby follows:]

Mr. LEBLANC. Thank you, Senator Landrieu, for allowing me the
opportunity to speak to you today. I know that I had some prepared notes, but what I’ve heard is a great dissertation by all the
previous members on the tax law, and I’m not going to talk about
it.
But I do feel that when they mentioned the concept of an independent producer in Louisiana, they’re talking about me. My name
is Joe LeBlanc. I am the Co-Founder and actually the CFO of
PerPetro Energy, which is a startup independent oil and gas company headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana.
We started the company in 2011 as a company that was focused
on going back out into the Gulf of Mexico. It should be no surprise
that most of the companies that are currently operating in the Gulf
Coast, shallow Gulf of Mexico, in this region are seeking an exit.
They’re seeking an exit because there are better rates of return and
regulatory environments in other areas of the U.S. and around the
world.
One of the things that you should know is I’ve been in the independent Louisiana-based world for most of my career. I was recently the Associate Director of the Tulane Energy Institute and
Clinical Professor at the A.B. Freeman School of Business at
Tulane University.
Prior to joining Tulane, I served as the Principal Financial Officer, Treasurer, Planning and Marketing Director of EPL. I was the
Manager of Finance and Business Development at McMoRan, Exploration Company, a derivatives trader of Shell Oil products.
And I’ve worked for, I feel like, most of my career now at the
Louisiana Land and Exploration Company as their Planning Coordinator, Derivatives Trader, Audit Coordinator, et cetera. So I’m
very familiar with what it’s like to be an independent producer. I
am also a CPA, but I’m not going to talk too much about taxes.
But where we are right now is we have been working extensively
on a number of transactions. We’re negotiating to actually acquire
the properties of people who are exiting. We have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to find the contrarian capital that was
interested in investing when everyone else was leaving.
So where we are right now is we’ve arranged a $500 million commitment to come back into the Gulf of Mexico. And you wouldn’t
believe that the comments and the questions that I’m getting as
we’re finalizing all these negotiations to buy these properties are:
I think I may need to raise your cost of capital because there’s talk
in Washington about changing the rules.
What you’re effectively talking about is changing the law so that
I need to start capitalizing my payroll. That’s not creating jobs.
That’s actually impacting us.
When we went around the Gulf Coast, looking at arranging a
new model, a new way of going back into the Gulf of Mexico, we
went around to the different service companies, the companies
you’re talking about up and down the corridor here in Louisiana

61
that would be our service providers. What we found was that these
companies were sitting on about 40 percent to 70 percent of their
fleets here in the Gulf Coast idle.
These are large independent service companies that have grown
up in this area. They love their people. They love their business.
They want to stay, and they’re looking for creative ways to stay.
We’ve created partnerships with them to put those people and that
equipment to work in this region, and they’re willing to put their
capital at risk. If we start changing the tax laws, will it affect all
of those decisions?
So as we’re going into this venture, the next consideration is that
in order to go back into this region you need to be able to post collateral with the BOEM and all the other players to be able to handle the abandonment liability. Of a typical transaction, it’s probably 80 percent of the capital that’s required. So we need to post
capital that says we have the capacity to handle the abandonment.
The interesting component about it is that it’s probably one of
the few, if only, places that all the capital is required to be placed
up front with no tax basis. I will have no basis for that liability
that I’m having to fund in advance. It is causing this region to be
completely noncompetitive with the rest, and that’s really one of
the other reasons people are exiting.
So as we talk about these issues, they’re affecting us. We’re trying to bring capital back in. Right now, we have it to where we’ll
be creating and/or retaining jobs right here in this area of 100 people within probably the next 30 to 60 days, plus all the other transactions that we have. The changes that we’re talking about, the
ones that are proposed, would dramatically affect us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LeBlanc follows:]

62

63

64

65

66
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. I’m trying to help you,
too. So thank you very much.
Ms. Stewart.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER STEWART, VICE PRESIDENT TAX,
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, AND CHAIR OF THE
TAX COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION COUNCIL

Ms. STEWART. Thank you. Senator Landrieu, thank you very
much for the opportunity to testify today. I’m Jennifer Stewart. I’m
the Vice President Tax of Southwestern Energy, an independent
energy company primarily engaged in the exploration of natural
gas and crude oil. I’m also here in my capacity as the Chair of the
Tax Committee of the American Exploration and Production Council, which represents 32 of the nation’s leading independent natural
gas and oil exploration companies.
I trust you’ll agree with me that the domestic oil and natural gas
industry has been one of the few business sectors instrumental in
providing new jobs and spurring growth in all sectors of our economy. The contributions of the industry during the recent recession
demonstrate that current tax policy has proven ties to developing
a stronger economy.
But how does that work? One of the most significant economic
drivers supporting investment in our industry is access to cash.
Cash flow from operations drives the next investment and helps
mitigate some of our industry’s real risks in the exploration and
production stage where upfront investment is extremely large. The
key component in this cash flow model is the ability to recover
these large investment costs quickly for tax purposes, and the tax
code has a number of provisions currently reflecting this policy.
For example, as many of my colleagues have attested to, independent energy companies are currently permitted to deduct their
business expenses as they are incurred. These expenses are primarily wages, fuel, transportation, repairs, and other costs necessary to construct a well pad, drill a well, and complete a well.
To limit the ability of these companies to deduct these expenses
as they are incurred is to limit cash flow from operations, which
limits capital investment, which we have all spoken to this afternoon, and to limit or even eliminate jobs.
Southwestern Energy is actively exploring now in northern Louisiana, and we have a very large position in our sister state to the
north, Arkansas. So I want to share with you some data from a
2012 study conducted by the University of Arkansas. It concluded
that for every direct job created by the oil and natural gas industry, an additional two jobs are created in the energy services sector
and in the industries that support them.
I can illustrate this further using 2012 data of my own company,
Southwestern Energy. Based on the university’s study, every well
we drill creates about 20 direct and indirect jobs. If current expensing of our ordinary and necessary business expenses was no longer
permitted, we estimated that 243 wells would have been eliminated
from our drilling program in 2012.
This would have translated into 4,900 jobs lost in Arkansas,
1,700 direct jobs and 3,200 indirect jobs. The negative impact on

67
any local economy, not just the Arkansas economy, of 5,000 jobs
cannot be overstated.
But what are these jobs? As you mentioned in your opening remarks, they are high paying. Based on a University of Arkansas
study, the average annual pay in Arkansas in the oil and gas industry is $75,000, twice the average salary in that state.
Then there are the indirect jobs that follow the supply chain, of
which most are generated by small business. Think of the contractor that hauls gravel to the well pad construction site. Someone
has to sell him—and then I added, or her—diesel, sell him or her
tires, repair his trucks, provide his insurance, clean his office, and
prepare and sell him food when he stops for lunch.
But why am I testifying today? Southwestern Energy and most
of the AXPC membership are not small businesses. To answer that,
permit me to provide one last statistic. In the years 2012 and
through this year to date, my company contracted with 3,532 small
businesses from all over the United States and paid a total of $2.7
billion to these small businesses over this brief time. And we are
just one energy company out of the thousands across the United
States.
I would like to share with you a remarkable conversation that I
learned of recently as I was preparing my testimony. This represents the perspective of one small business owner in the energy
sector that, in my view, in very few words, speaks volumes.
The small business owner started his business in 1985 with one
bulldozer. In 2005, he approached Southwestern Energy to do well
pad construction work for us. We granted him a contract to do so,
and in that same year, he went from 10 employees to 100 employees.
Before his work with the oil and gas industry, he was digging
ponds for farmers and, in his words, struggled to make ends meet.
And, in his words, and I quote, ‘‘My company has grown. We have
a stop light, a Sonic, and a Subway, and these wouldn’t be here if
it wasn’t for the gas companies.’’
In closing, our nation needs a strong domestic energy policy, and
I am confident that a change in tax policy would only weaken the
industry at a time when we can ill afford it. The American energy
renaissance was created as a result of development of our domestic
resources. Anti-growth tax policies will only weaken our domestic
energy industry and inflict harm on small business by limiting economic growth and the advantages that come with ample supplies
of secure domestic energy.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stewart follows:]

68

69

70

71
Chair LANDRIEU. Excellent. Thank you all for that excellent testimony. And, as you know, this is the Small Business Committee,
but the intersection of tax policy, business, and energy is clear. I’ve
had the pleasure to serve not on the Finance Committee, but on
the Energy Committee for many years now and, hopefully, in the
next few weeks, will actually assume the chairmanship of that
committee. So I’m excited about that.
I am very pleased to be holding what probably will be—I didn’t
realize this when we scheduled it—but the last field hearing that
I’m going to conduct as the chair of the Small Business Committee
on this subject. That’s how important it is, I think, not only to our
region, but to the nation. I think your testimony that will be submitted and filed in the congressional record will be extremely helpful in this debate that will occur in the Finance Committee and
then in Congress.
Ms. Stewart, I was really struck by the tremendous impact that
just your one company has had—business with 3,500 small businesses. And I know that you work with or are knowledgeable of
other companies similarly situated as yours.
Could you give one or two other examples of other companies
that you know? Do they do the same kind of work with small business, or do you think you are in a unique situation? Or do you
think the kind of work that you do is done by other companies of
similar size, whether in this region or somewhere else in the country?
Ms. STEWART. I think for any domestic producer—and not necessarily for domestic independent producers, but your majors as
well that have large plays in the United States—the trickle-down
effect is the same. So, you know, I can’t speak for any other producer, but to me, when I think about our guys that are working
on the rig, working 12-hour, seven-week shifts, you know, they
have to eat lunch.
So someone in the local community has to prepare the food and
sell them the food. And someone sells to the person who is preparing the food the ingredients to cook the food. And then someone
else sells them their napkins, and someone else sells them cleaning
supplies. That’s all local business.
So I think what I was trying to impress with my testimony is,
as you mentioned, the supply chain implications. It’s not just the
direct jobs. You know, my statistic of, basically, three jobs for—or
20 jobs for every well—that’s just within the energy sector. That’s
not including all the periphery that goes into supporting the energy
sector.
Chair LANDRIEU. I think the reason that that’s important—and
I’d like some of you to comment if you want to on that particular
question—is that I think in Washington, you always hear the
phrase, big oil, big businesses. I think people get a little disconnected in their thinking about what is actually happening on the
ground in places like Lafayette, the Gulf Coast, Arkansas, North
Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas.
With the opening up of so many basins in the energy renaissance
that we’re—you know, there’s something big about it, all right. It’s
moving this economy in a big way. But there are very small parts
that make up that big punch, and I think that’s what we’re trying

72
to communicate. At least, that’s what I’m going to try to do, to use
this field hearing to communicate to my colleagues and to inform
this debate as it moves forward to push back against this idea that
these tax breaks are special interest. They really are broadly used
and strongly used to create the kinds of jobs that I think we want
in our economy.
Stephen, did you want to add anything to that?
Mr. COMSTOCK. Yes. There was a report that API did in 2011
looking at the economic impacts associated with offshore development. As part of that, we did an informal survey of the members
and people who gave information to that study and found that
there were 2,500 contractors that were associated with just—like
I said, an informal analysis of people who help support the operations offshore.
Chair LANDRIEU. Does anybody else want to comment on that
question to Ms. Stewart? I have a few others.
[No verbal response.]
Ms. Lazenby, your testimony states that independent producers
are not tax rate driven. Instead, independent producers are concerned with the need to generate capital, recover costs, reinvest in
their operations. Independent producers historically have reinvested as much as 150 percent of the American cash flow back into
projects right here in America.
Supporters of proposals to eliminate the current oil and gas tax
provisions claim that any tax increase from the elimination of these
provisions will ultimately be offset by lower tax rates. You hit that
in your testimony, but can you underscore or explain why lowering
tax rates, once again for the record, does not necessarily help the
kind of reinvestment and capital reinvestment that is so important
and critical to the expansion of this industry and to the creation
of jobs?
Ms. LAZENBY. Well, I think—and you all can help me on this. But
I think the proposals are to try to get the tax rate down to approximately 25 percent, something like that. For the oil and gas industry, you start with a tax rate of 39 percent or something, and you
deduct your intangible drilling costs, your percentage depletion.
You come down with an effective tax rate lower than 25 percent—
10, 15. You pay that tax, and you take the additional cash flow between the 35 percent tax rate and the 10 percent or 15 percent tax
rate that you have, and you reinvest it in drilling.
If you were not able to take those deductions and got a 25 percent tax rate, flat, you would be paying more tax and wouldn’t have
the cash flow to invest back in the oil and gas. So it’s not a benefit.
There is no proposal that proposes to reduce the tax rate lower
than about 25 percent.
And when you have tax policies that were put in place for the
express purpose of encouraging capital formation to develop industrial products and industries in this country—and that’s why those
deductions were allowed, to reduce the rate so that you could put
your money in. But if there are no deductions allowed and they reduce it down to 25 percent, then there’s no encouragement to form
capital. You’ve lost that 10 to 15 percent of additional rate that you
would have available to invest.
Chair LANDRIEU. Does anybody else—Mr. Landry?

73
Mr. LANDRY. Congress has recognized several times over the last
10 years the importance of economic stimulus of accelerated cost
recovery. The 2012—I think it was called the American Taxpayer
Relief Act, which was the last big tax act in the summer of 2012.
It included an extension of bonus depreciation of 50 percent for all
asset acquisitions in 2013. That’s been extended several times.
We’ve had the GO zone credits as part of the help for Katrina
back—it’s in several relief areas.
If you liken that policy which says if we take capital cost recovery maybe quicker, that’s an economic stimulus—50 percent bonus
depreciation with a seven-year MACRS in the first year results in
about a 64 percent write-off. The integrated oil companies right
now get 70 percent for IDC and some might get 100. So what we’re
talking about here is to simply finance a reduction in rate by increasing recovery and allowances can have an adverse impact on
the economy.
One of the things that several studies have mentioned is if we
look to some of the major jurisdictions in the world that have lowered their tax rate, much like we’re talking to, like the U.K. and
Canada, those tax rates don’t have to be lowered in one fell swoop.
The tax rates can come down over a period of three to five years,
which is what Canada and the U.K. have successfully done in the
last decade. If we do that, then you don’t have to hit capital cost
recovery allowances so quickly to get there and do the type of damage we’ve talked about and Ms. Lazenby talked about.
Mr. LEBLANC. Could I add a comment to it?
Chair LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. LEBLANC. There’s a precedent in a large number of the other
countries that are trying to attract capital, which has been going
on for about the last 15 or 20 years. An oil company looks and says,
‘‘I’ve got a certain amount of money. I’ve got all of these particular
options around the globe. Where would I like to invest?’’
When you look around the globe, you’ve got to be able to say,
‘‘Well, in this country I might be faced with 1,000 percent inflation.
I might need to look at all of the different particular items.’’
But there’s a structure that people are using called a production
sharing contract. And, basically, other countries are saying, ‘‘Come
in and invest, and before we impose a tax structure on you, we’ll
allow you to get all your money back and a rate of return before
we come in with a tax structure.’’
Here’s what occurs: The actual decision making that occurs at
the E&P level is we would rather continue to reinvest than get exposed to the tax implications of taking the money out. So while
you’re there, you are generating a very large economic engine for
those countries by doing that.
Chair LANDRIEU. So they lure you in.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LEBLANC. They lure you in. But what I’m saying is——
Chair LANDRIEU. And then they make you so happy you don’t
want to leave.
Mr. LEBLANC. Well, that’s right. But what we’re talking about
here is if you contrast that to ours—they don’t ask for any royalties, nothing, until you get your money back.

74
But what the U.S. does is on day one, you get a royalty check.
I haven’t collected all my money back yet. And then as I go to reinvest, now you’re telling me that I don’t get a deduction for it. So
you’re actually making it currently very noncompetitive with other
basins.
If we want to attract the capital here, that’s a model that’s out
there. It’s not a new model. It’s very creative, and it’s what we’re
looking at. If you’ve got access to international investments, those
are very attractive.
Chair LANDRIEU. And let me ask you this, Mr. LeBlanc. Is there
anything that you’ve testified today that has a bearing on either
pre-Macondo or post-Macondo? What you referred to as having to
put up 100 percent of your liability—was that always the case, or
is that just post-Macondo?
Mr. LEBLANC. It’s a new factor, basically because—what the government requires is that you either put up money directly with
them, or you post capital to a surety company, and then they issue
a bond. Because of the people that are exiting, the sureties are asking for—what used to be 20 percent to 30 percent capital to be able
to post this bond is now 70 percent to 100 percent. I’ve even heard
some companies faced with 125.
There are current discussions right now where most independents were exempt from supplemental bonding, that there’s talk in
the industry right now by the BOEM that they’re looking at changing the rules so that 85 percent of the current independents will
lose their exempt status and would have to start posting bonds.
That means that a lot of the companies we’re talking about have
$2 million, $3 million, $5 million, $100 million of abandonment liability—that that would be capital coming out of the engine and
sitting in a trust somewhere for the benefit of the government
without any tax breaks on it at all.
Chair LANDRIEU. It doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
Mr. LEBLANC. It’s not. So I’m just sharing those different models.
Chair LANDRIEU. Mr. Jackson, do you have anything to add, or
Mr. Landry?
Mr. JACKSON. Well, one of the things that we were talking about
is the large super majors. Another part of that trickle-down effect
is that these larger companies—they divest these assets. And when
they divest these assets, they’re not economically feasible anymore
for these large organizations. Then you see those properties tend
to venture off into places like your small independents.
So it’s always—it’s an engine that keeps on going. So I think, you
know, those tax breaks are all—they just don’t represent those big
companies. I think they’re incentives for the smaller ones as well,
when those divestments happen, when these things occur, when
these larger companies are no longer seeing the economic model
making sense anymore in these particular properties.
Chair LANDRIEU. Let me ask this. I think you all have hit this,
generally. But if you could be a little bit more specific—and maybe
some of the CPAs could—when I hear in Washington—now, I do
not agree with this, but I hear, again, this is just special interest
for the industry, et cetera, et cetera.
How do some of these intangible drilling costs or tax treatments
correspond to similar industries that are either extractive in nature

75
or important in terms of building jobs, et cetera, so that we can do
a better job of advocating for why these provisions—they’ve been
longstanding, they’ve been helpful, they should not be changed. I
don’t know who wants to take that question.
Gigi.
Ms. LAZENBY. I’ll start. We just made some comments to Senator
Baucus as they requested that we do. This was basically about percentage depletion. That’s one example. Here are the people that
signed on for us: American Institute of Iron and Steel, Building
Stone Institute, Indiana Limestone, IPAA, Iron Ore Association,
Lime, National Stone, Portland Cement, Fertilizer.
So, basically, what’s happening is that the cost recovery—this is
percentage depletion, which I’d like to say a little bit about in a
minute. But, basically, the provisions that they’re talking about
changing are really anti-manufacturing. It’s not just oil and gas.
We have formed associations and gotten together with a lot of
manufacturing companies. And they’re taking away deductions for
actual expenditures, which those companies are all using to create
jobs, and you’re not able to have the cost recovery, all for reducing
the rate on maybe some finance companies or something. And it
doesn’t make sense because they aren’t creating jobs. They’re not
adding payroll, et cetera.
Chair LANDRIEU. It just doesn’t make sense.
Ms. LAZENBY. In terms of percentage depletion, which all of these
companies, extractive industries that I talked about—they all get
percentage depletion. It was put in the code because it was recognized that depletion—the limitations on cost depletion led to the
early closure of these resources and they needed to be protected.
In terms of oil and gas, it’s really become a small producer issue,
a marginal well producer issue, of which I am a good example. But
the significance—it’s not just me as a producer. Marginal production reflects 20 percent of all the oil and gas produced in this country, and it is a lot of little biddy wells.
Now, that is a massive base of the oil and gas production in this
country, and it is blessed with a low decline rate. If you take away
the ability of the marginal producer to create cash flow to keep
drilling the marginal wells and keep the wells producing or reworking them, you’re going to have a larger decline rate in that base.
There’s already a big decline rate in the newer big wells being
built.
So I’m not just one marginal producer. We’re 20 percent of the
base, and it’s very important. We don’t have access to capital like
the larger companies do. No community bank is going to loan a
marginal small producer money anymore on a bunch of little biddy
strip oil reserves. We have to rely mostly on our own internal cash
flow and some outside investors, and that’s why that is so imperatively important.
Chair LANDRIEU. That was beautifully said. I’m going to get Mr.
Landry and then Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. LANDRY. Senator, you asked for some of the other provisions
related to other industries. First of all, let’s talk about Section 199,
which is a manufacturing deduction that Ms. Lazenby referred to
a little bit.

76
Right now, the manufacturing deduction for the oil and gas industry is one-third less than it is for other manufacturers. That’s
one-third less—some companies creating big jobs like movie producers and newspaper publishers are still getting a 9 percent number and it’s 6 percent for the oil and gas industry. So the oil and
gas industry already has a reduced, vis-a´-vis, other industries that
are providing jobs in manufacturing. It’s Section 199.
For intangible drilling costs, which is probably the single biggest
indication, the closest analogy that I’ve heard is that new drug
companies under Section 174 write off the cost of discovering a new
drug. Again, this is something that’s wages, science, and something
without salvage value if that drug ends up not being permitted.
Well, that’s much the same as drilling an oil and gas well. If you
get a dry hole, there’s nothing there. As a matter of fact, there’s
cost. There’s a negative impact to that, to remove the cost of that
dry hole.
So there are other industries and there are things analogous.
And as I mentioned earlier, bonus depreciation is capital cost recovery. That, again, is very much——
Chair LANDRIEU. I think people would be surprised in our state
to understand that in the current tax code drug companies get 100
percent write-off for their costs. And if they produce a drug that
has absolutely no value or effect, they just move on, because
they’ve written it off, to try something new.
But the same benefit does not hold for the oil and gas industry
that, obviously, has a huge impact on the small business supply
chain, which is a very important principle of our economy—small
business and entrepreneurship—and has such a dynamic impact on
energy security, and then manufacturing renaissance. I mean,
those are three really powerful reasons.
You could probably think of others, but, immediately to mind, the
positive impact on small business and entrepreneurship, the independence of energy, self-reliance of the U.S. or at least North
America, and then the manufacturing renaissance. You would
think that this would be more easily understood in Washington.
Joe, let me get to you.
Mr. LEBLANC. I just wanted to add a little color to what they’re
talking about here. If you just think about a company, and it has
a certain amount of production, which is important to all of us to—
when you hear about the availability of production, it helps stabilize prices and everything else associated with that.
The contrast—just a point about the decline. In this region here,
in the Gulf Coast, we’re talking about 40 to 70 percent decline. So
if I bring on a new well, a new strong gas well, I’m anticipating
a 70 percent decline rate. That means that in order for me to stabilize production for my company and continue just staying flat, if
I don’t reinvest those dollars (and we saw that post-Macondo), most
oil companies started to have a really hard time because they
weren’t able to reinvest at the rate that they needed to because
there was a pause in permitting.
That cost companies—and in some ways, if you drop very low or
drop very quickly, you may never get back up to the level that you
had. It’s going to create risk with your credit facilities and et
cetera, and you may lose your access to capital. So what you’re

77
talking about is taking money out of that reinvestment engine
needed to be able to continue to keep production flat.
And just as another note, those other countries that we’re talking
about allow you to recoup even your dry hole cost against that mix.
So it’s actually a big ring fence around the entire investment window.
Chair LANDRIEU. Stephen?
Mr. COMSTOCK. I really don’t have anything to add. We’ve done
a lot of research into the intangible drilling cost discussion——
Chair LANDRIEU. Can you speak up a little bit?
Mr. COMSTOCK. I’m sorry. We’ve done a lot of work in the intangible drilling cost deduction, the history of it, where it came from,
just to make sure that we provide education to the policy makers
as to why it’s there. Back in 1954, when it was put into the code,
it was originally put in as an R&D deduction. It was part of the
R&D. Then through the committee action, it was taken out and
given its own section.
So in many respects, the policy makers, when they codified it, actually were thinking of it as an R&D deduction, that we need to
do this, that this represents a huge capital investment that’s at
risk that needs to continue on a current basis in order to continue
to produce either a drug or a new technology or whatever, but, in
this case, energy. So the analogy that Steve drew was actually
pretty apt. It was, in fact, what happened back in 1954.
Chair LANDRIEU. Ms. Stewart.
Ms. STEWART. Senator, I’d like to add—I’ll play devil’s advocate
to Stephen. In my role with AXPC and on behalf of my own company, I’ve made some Capitol Hill visits, and I’ve heard from some
contrarians that say, ‘‘Well, really, you’re saying this is equivalent
to a research and development expense, but you guys—this isn’t experimental. This is a manufacturing operation. There’s no risk anymore. You go, you stamp a hole in the ground, the hydrocarbons
come out. Where’s your risk? So why should we incent you for this
risk? So put that argument aside. It’s not valid. This is not a risky
exploration.’’
My counter to that would be, well, let’s not call it intangible drilling cost anymore. Let’s call it—how about wages. Are wages deductible? Is interest—are rents deductible? Is transportation of
crushed concrete deductible for everyone else? Well, yes, it is. So
why shouldn’t it be for us or for the industry?
I think part of the problem is this misnomer with intangible
drilling cost, that it’s some secret special thing that no one understands when it’s just the cost to do business.
Chair LANDRIEU. Which every other business gets to do.
Ms. STEWART. Right. So going to your point, if you’re saying
we’re not at risk anymore, then how are we different than any
other company doing business in the United States.
Chair LANDRIEU. And for states like Louisiana and Texas, where
a great percentage of our economy is based on energy and energy
related, this is a huge issue for us to make Congress understand.
That’s part of why this hearing—this isn’t the only hearing that’s
occurred, but it’s the most recent. It’s very, very important to get
this testimony to Washington.
Gigi.

78
Ms. LAZENBY. The other argument you hear sometimes, especially from the renewable fuel people is, first of all, they call it subsidies. But the point is that they say, ‘‘You’ve had these deductions
for years, and, therefore, it’s our turn to have them. You don’t need
them anymore, because it’s a fully developed—you know, you’ve developed your thing.’’ It’s like you created a medicine, and you’ve
gotten deductions for it.
Well, we create a medicine every day—a new well, at risk, every
time we drill a new well. And we produce in this country out of fossil fuels about 70 to 77 percent of our energy needs. For the foreseeable future, we’re going to still be relying on fossil fuels for
those energy needs. Renewables and wind and air and solar—that’s
fine, and they need to grow also. But to say, ‘‘You’ve already done
yours and you don’t need deductions anymore’’—we need those deductions in order to keep doing what we’re doing so we can grow
at the rate we need to grow to provide energy for this country. So
that’s chimerical argument as far as I’m concerned.
Chair LANDRIEU. Excellent. Anyone else? Let me check with the
staff. I think we’ve gotten all the questions on the record.
To get a little bit more on the record, if each of you could just
take a minute—in your experience—and some of you said this in
your opening statement—how would these proposals affect not only
our ability in this region, but in America—what impact would it
have if these proposals went into effect, which I’m going to fight
and others will as well—some of the things that have been suggested by the administration and members of Congress.
But if they did go into effect, what impact would it have on small
business in terms of the wages that are paid? I’d like for you all
to underscore a little bit about the industry and the kinds of wages
that are paid.
I think, Jennifer, you talked about that.
Ms. STEWART. Yes.
Chair LANDRIEU. You know, these are just not any jobs. These
are not minimum wage jobs. They’re not low paying jobs. This is
about entrepreneurship, business ownership, and wages that are—
how much above the average? Could you all put a little bit more
of that on the record?
Ms. STEWART. Yes. I mentioned that briefly, that the average oil
and gas wage in Arkansas is $75,000. And, actually, we were having this discussion at lunch today. A young man—and I will say
man because it’s 99.9 percent men who work in the field—without
even a high school diploma, as long as he can pass a drug test, can
go right now in my company and be a roughneck or a roustabout
on a rig and easily make over $100,000.
It’s hard work. He would earn every dime that he gets. But these
are the jobs that would be lost. So, yes, we employ physicists with
Ph.D.s and geologists and reservoir engineers, people with very advanced degrees from the top technical schools in the country. But
we also employ those with just a high-school education, and even
less, that are making wages, like I said, close to and even over
$100,000.
You can’t replace that anywhere. I’ve been to Capitol Hill, and
they’ve told me, ‘‘Well, if you look at the efficient allocation of capital within the United States, if we change the tax law with respect

79
to the oil and gas industry, and your capital dries up, that capital
will be efficiently allocated over here.’’ And my argument is, ‘‘Really? What’s that guy in Conway, Arkansas, who is now making
$100,000 a year’’——
Chair LANDRIEU. Where is he going to go to work?
Ms. STEWART. With a high school education, where is he going
to go? And then I get angry and we stop talking.
[Laughter.]
Chair LANDRIEU. Don’t stop talking, Jennifer. You’re doing very,
very well. You’ve got to keep going.
Joe, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. LEBLANC. Well, I think what you’re talking about is these
changes would raise the cost of capital and reduce the availability
of capital available for companies to invest. It will lower the value
of the properties that are out there to companies that are holding
them which might end up in tripping some financial covenants and
put those companies and jobs at risk.
It will have the same impact when you start to pull capital out.
Let’s talk about what we felt during the moratorium, when everyone started talking about, ‘‘My jobs are leaving the country. My
equipment is leaving the country.’’ That’s going to be the impact.
So what that will do is destroy companies and jobs.
Chair LANDRIEU. So if we keep the capital flowing, the jobs will
be flowing, and they’ll be jobs that are $50,000, $60,000, $75,000,
$100,000, $150,000 a year jobs.
Mr. LEBLANC. Yes. I would agree with what she’s saying, that
the guys out in the field have an opportunity to make quite a bit
of money, in the six figure range.
Chair LANDRIEU. Gigi.
Ms. LAZENBY. I’m probably the third largest employer in the
county—Lee County, Appalachian, a very rural Appalachian area.
And if you took away my ability to have percentage depletion and
intangible drilling costs and the deductions for capital—because I
have my own drilling rigs and drill my own wells, shallow wells—
I would have maybe a 25 or 30 percent reduction in my drilling
program.
The guys that work for me—I have 40 employees. I have my own
rigs. We do everything ourselves, except for fracking. We don’t do
that. But, basically—and logging. But we do it all ourselves. We’ve
trained these people. A lot of the people, just like you said, can’t
read and write. But they know how to use an iPad now. We’re up
to snuff on high technology, and even these guys are learning how
to do these things.
They have healthcare, premium healthcare. One of the policies
I’ve put in place over the years—I’ve probably paid almost 100 percent of their healthcare insurance. I know larger companies can’t
do that, but that’s the way my small company went on. I just decided that it was more important, really, for them to have a higher
raise. I provide healthcare, dental care, eyeglasses care, whatever.
And because we’ve been able to drill these wells and have had
success, and they’ve worked very hard, we have a bonus program.
We have a nice 401(k) for these guys, and they’re all into their
401(k). We have cash bonuses for them.

80
And just to top it off, this Christmas, I must have gotten 15 personal Christmas cards back from these guys and their wives, and
they said, ‘‘We can’t tell you how important it is that you have this
company and that we can work for you.’’ I mean, it made me cry.
It did, you know, for them to write that and say, ‘‘We really appreciate your company and what you’re doing.’’
Chair LANDRIEU. Because it’s not just a minimum wage. It’s a
living wage, a saving wage, and something they can build a future
on.
Ms. LAZENBY. Right. And, you know, you have a company picnic
and all the kids come, and you look at it and say, ‘‘Look, this industry created this.’’ And I’m going to go down fighting before I let
somebody take away the ability for an industry such as ours to create jobs so much across the board for good, good workers.
Chair LANDRIEU. Thank you.
Mr. Landry.
Mr. LANDRY. To expand a little bit on the wage impact, not only
are these good paying jobs, as has been testified, but what we’re
looking at is an increase in the number of jobs in the industry and
a trajectory that’s going forward. Many of these jobs are math,
science, and engineering. Petroleum engineers in this country when
they walk out of school have high demand.
And the communities that—if you look at the Eagle Ford area in
Texas, the Bakken area in North Dakota, and you look at those
communities, not only are all the people that have been there employed, but into those areas you’re bringing a lot of highly educated
people to help develop those reservoirs. That also has resulted in
new roads, new schools, and those schools—some of them may have
been in impoverished areas. They’re building new schools with
highly educated people and their children in those schools and raising the school districts in those areas.
So not only do we take the impact of a local wage and bring it
up, we bring in new people that help grow the community in the
right way. And not only is the production in wages, but it’s the
ability to grow those wages and to maybe give some hope to communities beyond.
Chair LANDRIEU. My friends, Heidi Heitkamp and Senator
Hoeven, Senator Heitkamp, would be happy to hear that testimony.
I’ll be talking with them shortly.
Mr. Jackson.
Mr. JACKSON. Basically, what everyone said—it’s no different in
the vessel business. It’s all centered around supply and demand. I
think mariners today do very well. For example, a captain on one
of my vessels probably makes about $200,000 a year. Now, contrast
that to a not so busy industry. That same guy was probably making about $90,000 a year. So it’s incumbent that we stress that
when oil and gas does well, everyone does well.
We’ve seen where mariners—they’re doing things they haven’t
been able to do in many, many years, and they have a comfort
level. They’re buying homes, and as she spoke to—bonuses. We’re
getting to a point now it’s becoming a very competitive marketplace
to attract employees, but that’s a good thing. That’s a good, healthy
thing, and we’re doing incentive programs like bonuses and things

81
like that, tangible things that families can grab ahold of and say,
‘‘This industry is where I really want to be.’’
For so many years, the oil and gas industry as a whole has had
its peaks and its valleys for many, many years. Some mariners,
particularly, have been burned. And, unfortunately, when the business isn’t well, the first thing—you have to go where your biggest
cost is, and, for me, it’s my salaries. It’s an unfortunate thing that
happens, but those mariners, once they’re burned they go to other
industries, they’re not coming back.
So we’ve got to continue to focus on that to allow them to see
that this is a very stable place to work. And the thing that makes
that happen is very simple. We’ve got to create an environment
where my clients, the oil and gas companies, are willing to reinvest
those dollars, as was spoken of here, and to continue that process.
So that, in turn, enables us to continue to pay a great wage.
Chair LANDRIEU. Mr. Comstock, last word. You had the first
word, so we’ll give you the last word.
Mr. COMSTOCK. I’ll be very quick.
I was going to say was that the oil industry is in a period of
changeover. A number of the people who are operating in some of
these high-paying jobs are going to be facing retirement soon. So
there’s going to be a lot of opportunity for the young to come in and
participate in the oil and gas industry and partake of these wages,
and not only for just sort of the traditional.
But, also, we’ve done some reports with respect to minorities and
the potential for jobs there in that community and to have these
high-paying, good, stable work environments as well and take advantage of that. So I think that across the board—as you sort of
alluded to, the high wages, the school benefits, the potential for
new jobs coming forward—there’s a lot there to really sort of take
in and to realize that it’s not just the large businesses.
It’s really the small businesses as well. It’s felt all the way down
the supply chain. And the jobs are there, and they’ll be there as
long as we have good policies to support it.
Chair LANDRIEU. I couldn’t think of a better way to conclude. So
this meeting will adjourn. The record is going to stay open for two
weeks. Anyone can submit testimony for this hearing.
I thank you again for your really very well prepared statements
and also for your very off-the-cuff and sincere comments about the
industry that you all have helped to build. And you’ve got my commitment. Whatever committee I land on or am running will have
my strong support in the future, because it’s important to this
state, but it’s very, very important to our country.
Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]